Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 2, David Pillpa 2, Mr. Shen 1, Rivera 1, Inhall 1, Pillpa 1, Mr. Chatfield 1, Unnecessarily 1, Subsection 1, I.e. 1, Mr. St. Croix 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 8, 2013
    8:00 - 8:30am PST  

8:00am
audio and/or video recordings of all such sessions with the recordings to be made available for inhall -camera review as to whether questions arise of incould have hail discussions or acs have taken place during those closed sessions? x and i'm still generally david pillpa and generally committed or should be. [ laughter ] let me go to item b, without complicating this section, unnecessarily, we have seen complaints about investigative files. i don't know how explicit this particular document should be about complaints, files and related documents. i just don't want anyone to
8:01am
interpret any more or less from this language than is appropriate. i am not sure that i am prepared to think through whether an investigation under these regs is the same as an investigation under 6.99-13 whether it's an investigative file as law enforcement agency, how it deals with rivera. all of those issues, i suspect, if we ever have a referral or have an investigation and generate these files, somebody is going to say let me see them. and then we're going to go back and forth about whether it is or isn't. i'm just trying to anticipate that now and have language in here or different language shall be disclosed as necessary or under cpra or sunshine,
8:02am
which isn't necessarily the most helpful. i mean it's true, but what does that mean? >> so you would propose to strike it entirely? >> i am struggling and i'm not quite sure what the best answer is, frankly. i am expressing a concern about it. and i suspect we're all smart people in the room and we all probably have different views about the matter. but i think we can all see there is something. i don't know. the question about ex parte communications, i was also looking at the existing regs, page 15 of attachment b. miscellaneous provisions about ex parte. i like that language generally. i think that was adopted here in a way that pretty much makes sense. i just don't think -- i think
8:03am
it makes sense to limit ex parte communications between parties and representatives of the complainant and respondent and members of commission. but beyond that, i would be careful about how much you limit it, if a member of the public comes up to you on the street and says hey i know you are on the commission that allegation seems silly or i think that person really did something wrong and up should do something about, i'm not sure you should be any lore limited engaging in that discussion than under other regs regarding how other complaints are handled. even if these are a more public -- this is certainly a more publicly known complaint than a complaint handled elsewhere. but if someone knows about it and someone wants to engage and
8:04am
they are not representing a party, and we're not barring that communication with respect to a different type of complaint. i don't know why you would have a higher standard here? maybe it was just the language "any member of public." i guess that is too subject to interception. thanks. >> so what does the commission think about the ex parte language? was there a reason we didn't follow the language from the regs?
8:05am
>> we definitely wanted to make it clear who the commission shouldn't be talking to and we just presumed that you would follow the rules that you can't speak to more than one of you as a normal matter of course. so we deposit specifically identify that commissions couldn't speak to each other. there may be a time it's necessary, possibly. if three of you were together, that might be a problem on a whole different level. >> i think i would be in favor of leaving it as-is. and changing "committed" to "conducted." i don't feel as strongly as other members of commission do. >> that is fine. so the two changes we have talked about for section 4, decision point 4
8:06am
is changing "committed to" conducted," in 1a and adding section j. with the addition of >> each commission who participates in the decision, but who has not attended the hearing in its entirety, shall certify -- got that? okay. &is there a motion to adopt decision point 4 as amended? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion passes. i had one other question about
8:07am
decision point 4. i don't think it will change the vote. can you give me an example of a complaint that would apply under i? >> someone could allege that a city official violated the conflict of interest rules and was at the same time not provided a public document in support of or related to that. it could possibly be withheld by the sail same person. we're just trying to allow if it were to occur. >> okay. so i think decision points 5 6
8:08am
and 7 can be handled together. i think they are pretty minor. does anyone on the commission disagree with handling decision points 5, 6 and 7 as one? any questions or discussion with respect to the proposed edits to the regs as discussed in in 5, 6 and 7? public comment? >> david pillpa, a couple of things. on the agenda for tonight's meeting discussion possible action on draft regs governing the handling of complaints related to alleged violations and referrals from the task force. i'm not sure i'm not sure within that scope you could
8:09am
actually act to amend the regs for investigation and enforcement proceedings. it pay be a close call, but it may be dependent on whether you take final action tonight or not. i don't have any particular quarrel with the proposed edits to the general regs. if i could, for a moment, on your last comment on subsection i in section 4 chapter 4. in the event that there is a complaint that alleges both a sunshine violation and other improper activities of other sorts, i would hope that the staff-initiated complaint pursuant to the last section doesn't reveal any more or less than necessary for the processing of the sunshine-related complaint,
8:10am
because the regular complaint wouldn't be disclosed under current provisions in the event it's dismissed or doesn't get tie problem cause report, et cetera. i'm not sure that you want to reveal any more than you would otherwise, just because someone added a sunshine allegation to a complaint. >> where do we discuss disclosing the contents of the investigative? >> it doesn't, but where it says, "staff shall initiate a complaint of the alleged violations." then staff could be initiating the complaint, but they would have to import the allegation facts, whatever, from the complaint presumably filed by another. unless the original complaint was staff-initiated. if someone hypothetically
8:11am
complained against a department head and said that they absconded with funds and oh, by the way didn't give me documents i was entitled to, you would bifurcate the complaint and handle the one as improper governmental activities and the other parts a sunshine violation. but i just want to be sure that people have enough information to go on the sunshine complaint, but you wouldn't necessarily reveal who the underlying complainant was. you would necessarily have to reveal who the respondent was. >> it's an interesting point. >> sorry. >> i wonder what the staff thinks on that? because the staff can't initiate a complaint either on its own awareness or it can say we
8:12am
heard about it from x, but we're going to erase x and issue a complaint? >> >> first of all we're bound by the confidentiality provisions so we would be very careful to make sure nothing that would be considered confidential was disclosed. we also would have the opportunity to file on behalf of somebody or staff-initiated, then it's staff versus public official x. so the original complainant would be hidden or masked in that sense. >> i have no quarrel with that and just wanted to anticipate how that might play out. my last comment and i'm sorry i'm going back to the chapter 2/chapter 3 issue for a second
8:13am
on the 2 versus 3 votes. i have no problem with the chapter 3 presumption that if you don't have three votes there is no violation. but under chapter 2 if there aren't three votes to not find a violation, then it sort of suggests that there was a violation. and that from my perspective is potentially problematic. i don't want there to be that inference that just because there weren't sufficient votes to find no violation that therefore there was, or might have been. i mean, it kind of leaves a cloud there. that is causing me some heartburn or something. thanks. >> mr. shen, first question for you, when you are out of the room, that is had your name is invoked. there was a question raised as to whether we can amend the regs given the agenda?
8:14am
do you have an opinion on that? >> you mean just a noticing question? yes, we can change the regs. we do change regs in ordinances and approve them out the same day. >> is the notice in the agenda sufficient to do so? i'm sorry, we want to change our regular enforcement regulations as well?
8:15am
>> i think we got our answer. >> decision points 5, 6 and 7. >> sorry, just a second. >> sure, take your time, please.
8:16am
i think the better practice would be to make the change at a later meeting. because it concerns super and complaints. okay, let's defer 5-7 unless the commission not properly
8:17am
noticed. the other issue that may be worth discussing is this idea that if under chapter 2, if we don't have a majority voting to find no violation, are we comfortable with two or fewer -- are we comfortable with the situation where we wouldn't have a major one way or the other? >> would you just remind us sort of for the record and the discussion how many commissioners it takes to hold a meeting in the first place? it's not that there could be one person or two people here. >> there have to be three. sometimes four, depending on the issue. but for this, i think we could do it with three. but you would be in the situation potentially where you had three members of commission
8:18am
hearing the issue you wouldn't get a majority either way. thus, by finding a violation with only even one commissioner supporting the finding of the violation. which is somewhat troubling. i don't know if staff, before i hear from you mr. pillpa. >> so we could put a provision in here that says five members must be here in order to have a hearing. to ensure that, you know, that situation doesn't occur. even with four members you could still have a 3-1 vote and
8:19am
that would be perfectly fine. you would have a 3-0 vote with just three people sitting here and that would be perfectly fine too. if you want to ensure that a party comingbefore you has full access to the commission rather than four or three, we could certainly write in here saying no hearing will be held unless all five commissioners will be there. although that could be potentially issues someone gets suddenly ill or there is an emergency. then we have to suddenly cancel everything. >> you would flip it. you could make it that you need three votes to find the respondent has committed a violation and make the burden easier on the respondent.
8:20am
the burden would remain the same on the respondent. >> mr. chatfield. >> hopefully i will make it easier. cause of hearing was developed because because there was a concern had a something coming from the task force, they have already made a decision. so the commission wanted to ensure that that commission or that decision was sort of coming in. the presumption is a violation has occurred when had he come here. so the respondent has to show why the task force was incorrect in making that decision for you to move on the show-cause part, not chapter 3. so i don't know if that will necessarily -- that would wind up changing the entire show-cause procedure probably or basically taking the presumption of a violation
8:21am
occurred out, if that was to happen. >> i was trying to think outloud as to whether we could maintain that presumption while switching around the vote. but maybe not. >> can we simply say at a meeting attended by four or more commissioners. a meeting or meetings? >> you still run the risk. >> or participation of four or more commission members? >> you still run the risk of 2-2? >> could you add one more thing? when we have hearings, we always endeavor to have all five commissioners here. so it's been very rare that that hasn't happened. i think it's only happened once and that was not for a part of a hearing, but to make some post-hearing decisions. >> we have had plenty of meetings where a commissioner has had an excuse the absence.
8:22am
>> i don't think we have ever had a hearing. >> right, but this would be at a regular meeting. >> okay. so i think we would approach this at the next practicable meeting is the one that all five commissioners were in attendance. make that a practice. you know, if you want to memorializes it, now you can. but we may not always need to do it. if we institute it as customarily how we handle things it would leave flexibility in scheduling. >> in event of a 4-commission member hearing and a 2-2 vote, there seems to be two options. one is since there is a presumption and a prior finding that 2-2 leaves that i.e., the
8:23am
sunshine task force finding remains -- goes into effect. becomes our finding, because we were split 2-2, i.e., don't have a three-person vote. or as we discussed earlier, could we carried forward to a subsequent meeting. if the commissioners at the 2-2 say that was a complicated hard-fought and sincere, this is one that we really ought to bring forward to the next meeting and allow the fifth commissioner the possibilities of doing this by a 3-2 vote, whichever way that commissioner should go. but i think we have those same options at the 4-person meeting could yield a 3-1 or 4-0 result without finding us to always have five for those. we don't know how numerous, how
8:24am
frequent an occurrence this might be. i respect the practice and i appreciate the executive director's point, but it's a high standard. part of what we want to do is bring them forward and act on them in a timely, responsive way. i am just trying to figure out how to make solid decisions, but without being unrealistic about how often we can get five? >> i think that is a good compromise. mr. st. croix, did you have something to add? >> no, i was just thinking that the circumstances are going to be limited anyway. if a vote is -- if there is four people and the vote is 3-1 against the respondent, the result is not going to change even if the other commissioner was there.
8:25am
and if there are three commissioners, and the vote is 3-0, the addition of two commissioners wouldn't change the outcome. >> right. it's the situation where it's 2-1 and the 1, particularly in a situation where the 1 is the vote to find the violation. and then you have basically found a violation based on one vote. >> yes, so if the situation was 2-1 or 2-2 the outcome could change. in which case that is when you would not postpone, but continue the hearing to the next session. >> i like this idea of requiring four. we require it for some things already and i think this is something where it would be helpful. >> are you saying a vote of four or four people at the meeting? >> four people in attendance is what i was thinking.
8:26am
>> yes, that is right. >> we have got to lean on the staff here a bit. we don't want to do something -- . that is the simplest thing to doj because you can just add a sentence under the scheduling of show-cause hearing. that if four commissioners aren't in attendance when a hear song the agenda, -- a hearing is on the agenda it has to be held over to the next commissioner where four members are present. >> is that something we want for chapter 3 as well? i know we have a different burden and
8:27am
presumption. there could be a perception that we're treating one more seriously than the other based on our requirement of how many commissioners need to attend. >> i think it would be fair to add to both. >> okay. if that is the case, can it just be added to section 4 rather than being added to both 2 and 3? >> we can do that. >> okay. any objections from the commissioners on that? do we need a revote and take public comment on it again? >> yes. >> let's take public comment on it? mr. pillpa? >> i think where we're going with this is on chapter 4ie2 the commissioner or chp may rescheduled the hearing for good cause and might read "may continue or reschedule a hearing at their discretion for
8:28am
good cause," good cause may include absence of one or more commissioners. >> i think that is a little too discretionary for what we're talking about. >> okay. >> anyway, it could possibly go there. >> somewhere in that range. i think on the chapter 2 question, i would probably not change the burden. i think the standard of proof and burden to be kind of makes sense. that is what the whole basis of the chapter 2 versus 3 thing was. i think i would be better with three positive votes needed to make a finding that there was a violation. so even if it requires three votes to find a violation, you can still hold the person to the burden, if they didn't meet their burden, then you go the other way. although it does play out in
8:29am
the same ways that we have talked about. i also would not substitute -- there was a suggestion at one point to substitute the finding of task force for the commission in the event that the commission doesn't overturn the tank ask force. i think the task force and the commission stand separately and i would not subject that you take the task force recommendation on its own. you can choose to, but i don't think there should be a regthat provides in the absence of a commission decision to the contrary. i think there are really different powers and duties and i wouldn't want to complete those. i think i have said enough for the moment. thanks.